Campaigners are back in court arguing that changing the women’s state pension age from 60 to 66 is discriminatory and unlawful.

Almost four million women born in the 1950s who thought they would be able to retire at 60 have had to wait another five or six years because of Government changes to the state pension age.

Last year, campaign group Backto60 took the Government to the High Court for a judicial review to get women reimbursed for money lost due to state pension changes.

The case involves two women - Julie Delve, 62, and Karen Glynn, 63 - who argued that raising the pension age unlawfully discriminated against them “on the grounds of age, sex, and age and sex combined”.

They lost after the High Court ruled that the increase in the state pension age affecting women born in the 1950s was not discriminatory.

The case has now been taken to the Court of Appeal, which is hearing arguments over two days.

Speaking at a virtual court hearing on Tuesday, Michael Mansfield QC, representing the women, said the state pension changes had been “catastrophic for this group".

“We have a group of essentially, economically and emotionally, disenfranchised women. So it is against that background that we do submit that there are grounds for discrimination,” he told the court via video link.

What caused the uproar?

The Pensions Act 1995 increased the state pension age for women and would have brought the qualifying age in line with men by 2020.

The Government then decided to accelerate its plan to increase the state pension age in 2011, so that men and women were on an equal footing by 2018.

The state pension age is currently 65 for both men and women and will increase to 67 by 2028.

Moneywise has spoken to a number of women born in the 1950s hit by the state pension changes, many of whom have suffered financially and emotionally.

Some women stopped working after expecting to receive a pension, but the changes have left them with little time to make alternative plans.

While the government insists it did enough to notify affected women of the changes, many disagree.

BackTo60 and other campaign groups, notably Waspi (Women Against State Pension Inequality) argue that many women born in the 1950s were not warned of the changes and have suffered financial hardship as a result.

What do the campaigners want?

BackTo60 is campaigning for all women born during the 1950s to have their financial position restored to the position it would have been, had the state pension age remained at 60.

Some 1.75 million savers are not receiving pensions tax relief, according to a new report from MPs damning Government policy on the issue.

The huge group of low paid and part-time workers, earning less than the personal allowance, will not get tax relief on their pensions contributions despite being auto enrolled onto their company pensions.

Women are most affected and make up three quarters of this group.

Ministers on the Public Accounts Committee are calling for HM Revenue and Customs and the Treasury to overhaul the system and make it fairer.

Meg Hillier MP, chair of the committee, says: “Every Budget we get tax breaks announced like baubles hung on a tree, and they generate great headlines, but the truth is the Government has little clue about the value of an enormous cost to the public purse.

“It sometimes fails to predict with any accuracy what tax breaks will cost, and there is often too little interest in whether it delivers what it intended to."

Retirement savings experts welcome the findings and say an industry-wide consultation is needed.

Rob Yuille, head of long-term savings at the Association of British Insurers, says: "The report highlights the disparities in the current pensions tax relief system, particularly the net pay anomaly, which has led to 1.75 million savers not receiving pensions tax relief despite being automatically enrolled.

“Any future review into pensions tax relief policy must include industry consultation to ensure it is evidenced-based and avoids unintended consequences.”

What is pensions tax relief?

Pensions tax relief is a government top-up awarded to people who save for retirement.

Tax relief is paid on your pension contributions at the highest rate of income you pay.

For example, basic-rate taxpayers get 20% pensions tax relief while higher-rate and additional-rate taxpayers can claim 40% and 45% respectively.

Santander is doubling the fee on its 123 Lite account from £1 to £2 per month from 27 October.

Customers with 123, 123 Lite, Private and Select current accounts will also see their cashback changed.

The changes will be introduced on 27 October.

What changes are being made?

From 27 October Santander will change two household bills categories where customers get cashback on bills paid from the 123, 123 Lite, Private and Select current accounts.

Those paying bills via direct debit from their Santander account will see water bills moved from cashback of 1% to 3%.

Communications bills such as phones and broadband/TV packages will move from cashback of 3% to 1%. 

Cashback on other household bills paid from these accounts, such as gas, electricity and council tax, will remain unchanged.

The monthly fee for the Santander 123 Lite account will be increased from £1 to £2 per month on the same date. The fee for the 123 Current Account will remain at £5 per month.

Cashback from 27 October

1% - Council tax, Santander mortgage, communications(phone/internet/TV packages)

2% - Gas/electricity, Santander insurance and protection

3% - Water bills

Cashback is capped at 5% on each tier, meaning you can get a total of 15% cashback.

Why are the changes being made?

Santander says it has to act due to the rising cost of its cashback scheme.

The bank pointed out that historically low interest rates, the coronavirus pandemic and ongoing regulatory changes have also had an impact.

Susan Allen, head of retail banking at Santander, says: “It has been a very difficult decision to make these changes to our popular 123 accounts but both the 123 and 123 Lite current accounts will continue to be good options for the large majority of our customers with the value they still offer.

“123 is the only account on the market offering both in-credit interest and cashback, while both 123 and 123 Lite accounts give cashback on essential household bills paid by direct debit.”

Santander will be writing to all customers during July and August 2020 to explain the changes.

Those whose returns do not meet the monthly account fee will be offered alternative account options.

The Santander 123 account was originally launched with an interest rate of 3% but was cut to 1.5% in 2016.

It slashed the rate on its 123 current account from 1.5% to 1% on balances up to £20,000 on 5 May this year.

From 3 August Santander will be reducing the interest rate on its 123, Select and Private Current Accounts to 0.6% per annum on balances up to £20,000.

More than seven in 10 of those wanting to retire before 2025 now cannot due to the coronavirus outbreak, and are urged to contact their pension provider to avoid losing money.

Fidelity International’s Investor Survey says 71% of those surveyed are rethinking their retirement plans after the pandemic caused huge stock market falls and reduced the value of their pension pots.

More than half (54%) said they would definitely need to work longer.

These savers need to inform their pension provider, according to Maike Currie, investment director, workplace investing, Fidelity International.

Why is this necessary?

Most people with auto-enrolled pensions are automatically put on their company's default workplace pension fund.

But Currie says: "However, what you might not have been aware of is that this scheme will be based upon assumed retirement date. Its investment approach, including the levels of risk and growth opportunities you’re exposed to, will have been developed with a target date - usually around your mid-60s - in mind."

If you plan on working for longer than this, you should inform your pension scheme to make sure you are not missing out on years of extra pensions growth. 

What happens if I don't?

Default funds invest for growth while retirement is a long way off, but as you get older your savings will be moved into lower risk investments to lock in growth and reduce the chance of sizeable losses.

Currie adds: “Around 18 years before a member’s planned retirement date, the strategy’s allocation shifts to more defensive assets to protect the value of their savings. Planning to work for longer means they can afford to delay the start of this shift, benefitting from several more years of asset growth before focusing on preservation."

Many pensioners rely on their winter fuel payment (WFP) to help them with their fuel bills through the cold winter months. To qualify for the 2019/20 winter, you need to have been born on or before 5 April 1954 and have lived in the UK for at least one day during the ‘qualifying’ week of 16-22 September 2019.

CW, who is 73, received a letter advising her of her winter fuel payment on 19 November 2019, but she immediately noticed that a mistake had been made.

She explains: “The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) were only paying me £100 instead of my usual £200 and said this was because another person was living with me who also received the allowance. This is untrue as I have lived alone since 2009.” 

CW contacted her local benefits office four times and each time she was told it would be sorted out. However, by the time she contacted Moneywise on 18 January, she was getting really fed up. 

“Today is two months since I got that letter and there is still no sign of my money. I would really appreciate your help with this as I’m getting nowhere by phone and I can’t find out who else to contact,” she wrote.

When I contacted the DWP, it said that its records showed that another eligible customer lived at the address, so a WFP of £100 was made.

It explained that WFP is paid per household, therefore if only one eligible customer lives in the household they will receive the full amount of WFP. If records show that more than one eligible customer lives in the household, then each customer would receive a shared WFP rate, which is £100 each (or £150 if 80 years of age and over).

A spokesperson for the DWP says: “Since your reader has advised the department that she lives alone, our records have been updated and a £100 top-up paid. The customer has been sent an apology.”

CW says: “I have been dealt with very poorly by the DWP and I am angry at being told it was all in hand and fixed. I don’t understand how this mistake was made in the first place, but I am so happy at the outcome.” 

OUTCOME: £100 top-up paid